Archive - Work in Progress

[Tuckerfan1053]

Even back in 1950, even a complete idiot would have known the significance of that 1949 body. I really have doubts that anyone would have taken torch or hacksaw in hand and cut that roof off. It's probably sitting out in the woods someplace or got scrapped by mistake.

Well, there was the Memphis Tucker which was scrapped back in the 1950s, and 1023 was crushed in the 70s or so, while 1046 was ripped apart and reworked with Mercury components. To assume that someone wouldn't just "hack up" a Tucker, is a bit much, I think. We know that there were a number of bodies produced by the Tucker Corporation, several of which were never turned into finished cars. There's also the 100+ engines that the company produced, I've only heard of a handful of them turning up (and I don't know if that 100+ figure is inclusive of the engines installed in the cars or not).

[Tucker Fan 48]

"if it was restored back to its 1950 (actually 1948/49) configuration, you would still have THE ONLY, one-of-one, documented (thanks to LIFE) prototype 1949 Tucker in existence."

I hadn't thought about that before but I think you are correct. Benchmark would probably have been better off restoring # 1057 back to the big rear
window body it once was. In that configuration it would be a fully documented Tucker body, (even though it would be completed long after the plant
closed,) that WAS started at the Tucker plant. With all the parts they have the car would be nearly all Tucker parts. I think they'll find that with all
the questions about the "convertible" it will be simply considered a replicia at best.

I still find it interesting that they continue to use the "prototype" story. Preston Tucker was accused of fraud and found not guilty but if Benckmark sells
this car using the "prototype" story they just might end up in the crowbar hotel.

[SuperFleye]

"if it was restored back to its 1950 (actually 1948/49) configuration, you would still have THE ONLY, one-of-one, documented (thanks to LIFE) prototype 1949 Tucker in existence."

I hadn't thought about that before but I think you are correct. Benchmark would probably have been better off restoring # 1057 back to the big rear window
body it once was. In that configuration it would be a fully documented Tucker body and even though it would be completed long after the plant closed, it
would still be a documented car that WAS started at the Tucker plant. With all the parts they have the car would be nearly all Tucker parts. I think they'll
find that with all the questions about the "convertible" it will be simply considered a replicia at best.

I still find it interesting that they continue to use the "prototype" story. Preston Tucker was accused of fraud and found not guilty but if Benckmark sells this
car using the "prototype" story they just might end up in the crowbar hotel.

As far as I understand that would still be a "fake" car, as far as I have understood, the rear section of the car came from body no 55... At least that is what TUCKER's pictures showed.

[Tucker Fan 48]

I'm not sure that it would be considered "fake". Look at all the collector cars that get sold that have replacement parts from other cars.
If I have a 55 Chevy that has the front fenders rusted out and I replace them with fenders from another 55 chevy would it then be
considered a "Fake" 55? I think the same would be true of a Tucker. If you replace parts off one with parts off another it would still
be a Tucker. There are several examples of that in the original 50 Tucker cars.

Body # 1057 was never completed at the plant but I think a DOCUMENTED one off body would still attract a lot of interest from
collectors. The "convertible" will never be documented other than it will be a bunch of parts and fabricated pieces that look
like a Tucker and that won't bring serious collectors.

[SuperFleye]

I'm not sure that it would be considered "fake". Look at all the collector cars that get sold that have replacement parts from other cars.
If I have a 55 Chevy that has the front fenders rusted out and I replace them with fenders from another 55 chevy would it then be
considered a "Fake" 55? I think the same would be true of a Tucker. If you replace parts off one with parts off another it would still
be a Tucker. There are several examples of that in the original 50 Tucker cars.

Body # 1057 was never completed at the plant but I think a DOCUMENTED one off body would still attract a lot of interest from
collectors. The "convertible" will never be documented other than it will be a bunch of parts and fabricated pieces that look
like a Tucker and that won't bring serious collectors.

I totally agree with you if we are talking about a stock production car, but when it comes to a prototype I can't say I agree. If you took a 1950 Buick and built it into a 1951 GM LeSabre "lookalike" it would no way be considered a collectible prototype. My example is far way drastic, if the only variation from the stock car is the wrap around rear window. I have read that someone said anything about the front fenders also being reworked. Anyone have more details about this?

[john]

Guys,

WOW, really glad that you have documented the convertible as #57 ?????

Oh, I wanted to ask, did Lencki have his men paint the whole unfinished car Easter egg Blue and then cut and grind the car apart WHILE it sat untouched for over 20 years:
Is this correct?

Or, did he cut and grind it apart, then in desperation for something to do, have his men paint the rocker and then grind and sand the area's where the door jams were, then let it sit for PLUS 19 years and 11 months?
Is this one correct?

Thanks for doumenting #57 for us, sure would like to hear how you figured this all out so I can correct my notes and writing?

John

[Tommy]

Be nice now John. It is not documented that Benchmark has Body #57. They probably can make the case that they have some parts from Body #57 based on the number stampings but I am not sure which 3 parts are stamped. If an expert took a real close look at the numbers and compared them to any Tuckers that have original stamps on the same body panels you could probably tell if they were made by the same stamp. You would have to look at a few 5s and 7s from the other Tuckers and if you were lucky you would find a match. As far as I know this has not been done so it is still up in the air.

Even if they verified these numbers the obvious thing is they do not have the big back window itself. They may have the modified fenders but that may be even harder to prove now that they reworked the fenders to be closer to original and there may not be any pictures of the fenders Mr. Tremulis modified anyway. Maybe if their fenders have numbers on them that can be matched to other Tucker numbers, that would be at least something. My point is there could still be the big back window portion of Body #57 and the fenders out there somewhere waiting to turn up, however unlikely that may be.

The fact that Body #57 was photographed in the factory after the closing makes the whole convertible story bunk, John, including the part about it sitting at the engineering firm untouched for 20 plus years.

I believe it has been stated that Body #57 was purchased by Mr. Schliph at the auction (someone else will have to verify that). Whatever the firm had, or the employee of the firm depending on the version of the story, it was not Body #57 and it was not untouched. The #57 parts were brought into the mix at some point later if they even are #57 parts. Whatever happened between 1950 and the 70s when Mr. Reinert bought it is unknown. It was stated by the auction house that sold the remains of Mr. Schliphs collection that Mr. Reinert got a bunch of parts for his project before the auction house sold it. That is most likely where the #57 parts came into the picture. It is unknown, at least as far as I can see, what went on before Mr. Reinert got the car or parts of the car in the 70s. It is also not well documented where a lot of Mr. Schliphs parts went after he purchased them at the auction in 1950. It can only be assumed that this was huge amount of parts and even included #1027. Even after 60 years of horse trading it looks like there is still enough left to put #1027 back together (with a little help from #1018 ).

I would also disagree with the idea that all this controversy devalues the convertible. Of course it will never sell for the price a documented factory convertible would, but remember, that’s not what it ever was. It’s a Tucker pieced together from parts unknown and made into a fantasy convertible. The controversy has given it some degree of fame and the more people that know about it the more likely it is to attract a buyer with deep pockets. Of course it will never have the value of an immaculate original Tucker… it never was an original Tucker (not one of the 51 anyway). When this car sells for something near the value of an original, and it will, it will be because of the controversy not despite it. Famous cars get famous bucks, infamous cars get infamous bucks. Maybe it won’t be worth so much to a purist but it will be worth a lot to someone. I bet it even gets titled by the DMV as a 1948 Tucker.

[TUCKER]

Like I have said before, I would not trust stamped numbers since they can always be erased and stamped again. You can buy the number tools almost anywhere to do this. Snyders Auto Parts also sell sets of number stamps with the original number style and stmbles used by ford.

Here is a set of number stamps I found very easy on ebay that would make a good match! See photo.

[Tommy]

I agree you can restamp and make it look factory to the naked eye. What I am saying is a well used stamp has all its own little imperfections that will show up on each stamping changing ever so slightly as time goes on. With luck and labor you might be able to determine if the exact same stamp was used on two parts. One from an original and one from the convertible. We are talking about 1948 technology and I doubt the stamps used were so lazer straight they had no dings, nicks or bends that would show up like fingerprints on each stamping.

As an example, looking at the pic of your stamp set there is a little wave in the bottom of your#1 and a little bubble on your #5 that might make them unique. This may be a trick of the light but maybe you can see what I mean.

[john]

A- the serial numbers were personally verified as being stamped """"into the body cowl and frame."""""
B- the numbers were also verified by an agent of the law, body cowl and frame numbers.
Piss on the parts, these are the numbers that count, UNDER THE LAW!!!!
C- it is documented that the new owners have this number 57 car,
D- everybody knows what the serial number of this car is,
E- I am a licensed, bonded and insured Dealer in the State of Illinois.
F- We did not tell the stories engraved everywhere, the previous and current owners did.
G- We walked from the car !!!!

Won't even talk about what you guys are talking about above, that is a major league Federal Offense !!!
John

[Tuckerfan1053]

So, in short, if the car in the photos with the big rear window is 1057, then it was cut up to make the 'vert, or they had two cars stamped 1057, (the big rear window and the 'vert) or the 'vert body was illegally altered to have the same stamp as the big rear window body. Only one possibility allows for the 'vert to be a legit car, and since the general feeling is that the 'vert is not legit, we're left with either the first or last choice. Neither one is at all that far out of the realm of possibility. I've seen enough similar fraud in my day for cars with considerably less value than a Tucker, to know that its fairly common.

If the car with the big back window is not 1057, then there's the possibility that the 'vert is legit, but we're left with the mystery of what the number of the car in the photo is.

[TUCKER]

Just never had my question answered here.
Where is the easter blue egg frame from 1027??
1027 of today have "test frame 1052" so where is 1027??

[Preston]

This has been a great thread ... this site is usually dead with the exception of newbies asking are all the cars accounted for
or if radios have any value.
It's been great seeing others here post pics of parts and hearing about piles of parts...
I enjoy the detective work on this convertible made of left over parts painted red, green, blue, black and parts from a early 50s Buick... if it was secretly hidden away even when the plant was closed and the company lost... would'nt it have been auctioned off with the rest... It's a shame if the real 57 was scrapped.... would have loved to seen how the back quarters
were modified... What a great car... after all these years it neat that so many still care and dream...
I'd like to hear more about the parts...who were these gentlemen that owned all these parts.. I mean a trailer full!
Were they at the actual auction and bought these up.... did they scower scrap yards to collect pieces that were being scrapped... There was a documentary made years ago on the History Channel... the gentlemen that had the tingoose
at the time also showed a complete body in yellow primer... was that a complete car being restored or a parts car....
Is there anyone out there with a list of parts?
We've about beat this convertible to death... It's gonna be a great car... hope the new owners get their money out of it...
nice to see it finished after all these years... Is it the real deal... to me ... no... but a great way to use the parts...
but man it would bite after all that work to see a couple back doors pop up and a roof!... then you'd have had a complete sedan.....

[TUCKER]

found the new clue that it looks like the frame from 1027! they both look to have the same damage on the side.
1-same color
2-same damage to the side
3-mystery frame have a door damage from the roll when the door first pushed against the rocker when it rolled on its top!
4-nobody would primer seal and paint something and then grind the welds from the old panels off! For protection it would only have paint or primer.

I highlited the damage in red in this photo so you can find it. you can falow the edge lines and shadows and you will see the same damage!

[Tommy]

A-Everyone else can see these numbers too.
B-I understand there was an officer with you when you saw it; you said so many times …so what?
C-It is documented this car is stamped “57” in places, and I take your word for it that it’s the same car in the mystery Tucker picture, that’s it. It has never been licensed and titled. When it is it will get a brand new 2009 VIN attached to the frame and cowl/dash just like every other home built car. If this VIN has the number “57” in it that will be by luck or by request. This new VIN will have a lot more than just 2 or 4 numbers in it anyway. Anyone who has built a kit car or hot rod from scratch and then had it licensed and titled knows how this works. You can title it as whatever you want as long as it passes all current safety regulations.
D-Not sure this qualifies as a serial number. It won’t be the VIN as I said. Maybe you disagree.
E-Kinda figured that, Illinois is a nice state, been there a few times. Have you ever built a car from scratch? Not saying you have not but the rules are a bit different than buying and selling already licensed and titled cars.
F-I don’t pretend to know who started the story about the convertible. I think most people are honest and whoever is telling the story now may actually believe it. At least it sounds like they did when they bought and/or sold the car. I think that goes for Benchmark and Mr.Reinert.
G-I know you walked from the car, you said so many times.


John you can talk or not talk about whatever you want. Talking about things is not a federal offense. It’s called freedom of speech. We all have that. Due to your profession and previous involvement with this car I can see where you want to be careful with what you say. The rest of us do not share that problem. For the record, I have no dog in this fight either. I won’t be buying this car, but someone will. They will have a nice car that is all legal to own and drive.